<i>"...but just suppose the universe itself is the observer?"</i><br /><br />I think that from the "Universe's" view point, it is still a singularity!<br /><br /><i>"But would time run faster or slower for observer 1, who's part of the disturbance, than for observer 2 who's outside the disturbance? If so, why?"</i><br /><br />I believe both observers would experience themselves to be ageing at exactly the same rates, since time is (more or less) constant. <br /><br /><br />
- Status
this is hard for an average man like me to explain also...<br />but I'll try my concepts..<br /><br />time has no quality..<br />no property..<br />intangible...<br />difficult to describe but nonetheless percieved..<br /><br />consider that you could run at light's speed..<br />you would notice that everybody "seems" to be non moving, but infact they are. <br />It would "seem" to you that time had stopped...but in fact it did not. just imagine if you are inside the train and the train is moving very fast. You could see people outside moving very very slow eventhough they are running or walking fast..<br /><br />but that is what it "seems"...<br /><br />now consider you are about to dive into a blackhole....<br /><br />from inside the field, you could see bizzare things outside the strong gravitational pull.. why?<br />because Bhole bends light waves into it, causing images to get distorted.. <br />now, talking about time, as you fall into the shrinks, (well its just a matter of small time for you to hit the singularity..) everything would seem to be moving slow because you are moving so fast as gravity pulls you...<br />and you, as a refference could say that time within the event horizon is distorted..<br /><br />but truthfully, time does not matter inside the blackhole for there is nothing to make itself aware of itself.<br /><br />you can create a clock that runs counterclockwise but time would still move forward...<br />______________________________________________________________________________________________<br />if we end today( die ) it is logical to say it is the end of our time...<br />if time ends today, it is logical to say it is our end...<br />______________________________________________________________________________________________<br /><br />I hope I gave a good explanation..<br />
<br /><br />P.S. <br />where on the same boat-trip to learning <br />( i'll post this as a topic thread ) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>
<br /><br />P.S. <br />where on the same boat-trip to learning <br />( i'll post this as a topic thread ) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>Don't be frustrated, just give it a little <i>time.<br /><br />"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so."</i> <br /> <br />Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)
unlearning-- I like very much your description of the train. It makes these ideas visual for me. Thank you.<br /><br /><br />Yeah, I think I understand...<br /><br />Just please be patient with me here... <br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />
to scull and harmonic:<br /><br />cheers <br /><br />im sleeping now ( my eyes need matchsticks to hold it open )<br /><br />nice comments.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>
<br /><br />im sleeping now ( my eyes need matchsticks to hold it open )<br /><br />nice comments.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div><i>"Let not the sands of time get in your lunch."</i><br /> <br />National Lampoon, "Deteriorata"
scull - The age of the universe is real and is specific. Perception of the age is difficult, however, which is why different estimates keep varying, especially over time!<br /><br />One must also be careful of optical illusions, in this case including those caused by high speed - notably interpretation of red shift.<br /><br />You posted:<br /><br />If at some point the Universe were to stop expanding (or were to collapse), what would happen to Time? <br /><br />If our unverse stopped expanding, it would collapse due to gravity.<br /><br />However, current observations indicate eternal expansion - and the Bible also implies this (see, for example, Isaiah 40:22 and Psalms 37:29; etc.).<br /><br />The answer to your question is:<br /><br />Space-time might collapse into virtually nothing, even cease to exist. However, primordial time would still exist, along with other universe's space time.<br /><br />Alternately, dark energy might cause a repeat big bang such that space-time would continue to exist.<br /><br />Compare the old Oscillating theories - involving an oscillating universe from expanding to contraction to expansion again - either from a singularity or simply a small size, possible near to planck length for radius or diameter.<br /><br />One factor here is spin rate. Even a very tiny imperceptible spin in our universe would be magnified so exponentially by contraction (compare a figure skater pulling in arms, or tornado formation and hurricane formation) that spin might exceed the speed of light before contraction of the universe reached planck length!
Newtonian -- You wrote, "However, primordial time would still exist, along with other universe's space time. "<br /><br /><br />What primordial time?<br />What other universe?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />???????????????????????????????????????????????????<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
"consider that you could run at light's speed.. <br />you would notice that everybody "seems" to be non moving, but infact they are. <br />It would "seem" to you that time had stopped...but in fact it did not. just imagine if you are inside the train and the train is moving very fast. You could see people outside moving very very slow eventhough they are running or walking fast.."<br /><br />Would they? Or would they appear to be moving very fast? Since time is slowing for you then would it not appear to you that time was speading up for them?<br /><br />I think that everything you saw would blue-shift or red-shift as you passed by. I think if they saw you zoom by would you be blue-shifting towards them and red-shifting away? I think they would only see colors because your size would be reduced dramatically.
Description of what light speed would be like:<br /><br />Here, an analogy with rain will help. The faster you go, the more slanted the rain appears from inside the tram, even though it's falling vertically outside.<br /><br />Vision of arrows: In this low-speed world, light rays will appear to came into the tram at steeper and steeper angles as you accelerate.<br /><br />Point of View 1: Your eyes will interpret this by making things in front actually look as though they're going further away. As you go faster, tops of buildings will curve, and objects that are behind, like clouds and the sun, will slide into your field of view. <br /><br />Vision of Desert: Let's try driving down this road in the desert. As we approach our light speed of five metres per second, it seems like we're going the wrong way. Take a look at the sign on the left. Not only does it seem to curve over, but you can actually see the back of it. On the right, the simple square building stretches out alarmingly.<br /><br />Vision of tram / Point of View 3: But that's just the start. I'm afraid we've been guilty of a little over-simplification. You see, as you go faster, the frequency of the light increases. It's called the Doppler effect. Just like with sound, where an ambulance siren will seem higher in pitch as you travel towards it, colours in front of us will appear shifted towards the higher frequency, blue end of the spectrum. <br /><br />Point of View 3: But wait - there's more! And it's not good news. As we speed up, all that light in front of us will just pile up and get brighter and brighter the faster we go.<br /><br />Vision of desert: Out in the desert, with the Doppler effect and light intensity switched in, it all starts to look like a very strange world indeed. <br /><br />Vision of space ship: So how should film makers depict a journey through space, in our real universe of three hundred million metres a second?<br /><br />Vision of stars: Setting off, the stars will frustratingly appear to get fu
"But did the photon really go anywhere, or did space just expand around it? "<br /><br />That is the best question of all.....<br /><br />If you were the photon starting out at the speed of light you would feel no acceleration. So would it be a relative observation?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />Would they? Or would they appear to be moving very fast? Since time is slowing for you then would it not appear to you that time was speading up for them? <br />----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />time is not slowing down on me..<br />I am the one moving fast and the surrounding is the one moving slow...<br /><br />you should observe the experince...<br /><br />blue shift/redshift?<br /><br />I took the visual-analogy way to provide answers...<br />and I said "consider"....in my statement<br /><br />if I were to strictly follow things:<br /><br />you can never see anything comprehensible in near distance with you...if you are moving in light's speed..<br /><br />but...<br /><br />you can see things VERY far away from you and you can comprehend them even if you are moving light speed...<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>
scull - I will reseach your questions more and respond better later.<br /><br />You asked: what primordial time?<br /><br />This is my personal theory - you might compare Stephen Hawking's imaginary time.<br /><br />Primordial time would be time which existed before our universe's space time.<br /><br />Since our universe's space time did not exist when the creation of our universe was caused, and since cause and effect cannot proceed without time, then our universe must have been caused during pre-existing time, which I call primordial time.<br /><br />What other universe, you asked.<br /><br />I don't think I specified.<br /><br />Many scientists beleive there are many universes - and many variant models.<br /><br />The Bible also uses heaven in plural often, and God is spoken of as dwelling in another heaven.<br /><br />I will research the scientific models and post a few later.
Hmmm... If you're travelling at "c" velocities (the speed of light), you'd reach the end of the universe before you could finish your coffee.<br /><br />It would it take all the "E" (Energy) in the universe to get you up to "c" velocities, and you'll also find yourself loaded down with an infinite amount of "m" (mass). (You'd also be unpleasantly "Length Contracted" as well, but that's another discussion...) <br /><br />As you approach "c", the <i>"Law of Diminishing Returns"</i>* kills your forward progress. You can push harder and harder but "c" will always be just out of reach!<br /><br />It might make more sense to restate your topic using a more logical velocity, such as "<sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub>c" - this velocity also makes for a fascinating discussion and avoids the theoretical pitfalls of "c".<br /><br /><br /><big><b>E=mc<sup>2</sup></b></big> <br /><br />* <i>Law of Diminishing Returns: A law stating that as the quantity of one input increases with the quantities of all other inputs remaining the same, output increases but by ever smaller increments.</i><br />
harmonicaman - You are, of course, referring to the theory of relativity. <br /><br />However, inflation theory does posit our universe expanding faster than light (FTL) briefly, and current observations of acceleration of expansion imply present or future FTL expansion.<br /><br />Note, however, that theorists usually consider it is space itself that is expanding, i.e. the fabric of space, not the motion of matter independent of said fabric.<br /><br />The former has no known speed limit, the latter has a speed limit of c.
and...<br /><br />anyone on that experience will surely die before they can reach C or even half of it...<br /><br /><<consider blood pressure />> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>
ah, I see..<br /><br />that is right. increase in mass.<death /> <br /><br />just consider you are not affected by these....<br /><br />pitfalls of C. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>
unlearningthemistakes - You could avoid being affected by those factors if you are in motion way less than c from the point of view of your reference point on the fabric of space (&-time).<br /><br />That is, if your speed is primarily due to expansion of the fabric of space rather than your individual motion.<br /><br />As in:<br /><br />e-motion.<br /><br />[er, i.e., expansion motion]<br /><br />Let's not get carried away here!
good lord..<br /><br /><br />to harmonica and newtonian:<br /><br />I stand corrected...thanks..<br /><br />next time I will use..<br /><br />"near speed of light" <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>
"time is not slowing down on me.. <br />I am the one moving fast and the surrounding is the one moving slow..."<br /><br />Really? Then I don't understand relativity and maybe time dilation doesn't exist.<br /><br />You may very well be moving fast and your surroundings slower (I don't know). But time dilation is a fact and has been proven. If you traveled very fast then stopped and compared your watch to someone who was not moving. Your watch would be running a bit slower then the other person's. The more you increase to C then the more apparent this difference becomes. Eventially even years. You may be correct in what you said about how your visualization might appear but not about your time. So the way I see it. Is that if your time is slowing down then wouldn't it look like everyone else's would be speeding up? I am not sure but it seems like that would be the case. If you are correct and it looked like everyone stopped or moves very slow then since your time is running slow once you slowed down from the speed of light everything would have to catch up all at once. You would in a way have traveled into the future. I am not sure what visualization would be correct. Maybe someone else here can clarify it.<br /><br />"you should observe the experince... <br /><br />blue shift/redshift? <br /><br />I took the visual-analogy way to provide answers... <br />and I said "consider"....in my statement"<br /><br />I wasn't trying to undermind what you were saying. If you look back at my post I was asking a question and not making a comment. But the doppler effect would more than likely be a part of your experience. If I am wrong then someone please correct me.<br />
uhm, sorry if I lost my etiquette or something like that...<br /><br />so Ill be the one to ask this time..<br /><br />premise: <font color="yellow">"time is not slowing down on me.. <br />I am the one moving fast and the surrounding is the one moving slow..."</font><br /><br /><font color="yellow">----></font> did not say time is slowing down on me... but by implication it is moving fast for me and the rest retains their time quality.<br /><br /><br /><br />If time slows down on me; unto me, when I speed up near C, would it be analytical to say Im going to reach the future as the experts say that you can reach the future when youn speed near C?<br /><br />thanks <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>
<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 189
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
-
SpaceX launches 21 Starlink internet satellites from Florida, lands rocket at sea (photos)
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram